Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1967–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Novey v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Cooper, 1991 OK CR 26, ¶ 17 , 806 P.2d at 1139 , See also Novey v. State, 1985 OK CR 142, ¶ 14 , 709 P.2d 696, 699-700 (where defendant has drug related and non-drug related prior convie-tions, prosecution may elect to enhance under either § 51 or the uniform controlled dangerous substance act, but not both); Hayes v. State, 1976 OK CR 118, ¶ 5 , 550 P.2d 1344, 1848 (pumshment for a drug related offense could be properly enhanced pursuant to § 51 if the prior offense alleged was a non-drug related felony). 2016Cooper, 1991 OK CR 26, ¶ 17 , 806 P.2d at 1139 , See also Novey v. State, 1985 OK CR 142, ¶ 14 , 709 P.2d 696, 699-700 (where defendant has drug related and non-drug related prior convie-tions, prosecution may elect to enhance under either § 51 or the uniform controlled dangerous substance act, but not both); Hayes v. State, 1976 OK CR 118, ¶ 5 , 550 P.2d 1344, 1848 (pumshment for a drug related offense could be properly enhanced pursuant to § 51 if the prior offense alleged was a non-drug related felony). | 3 | 3 |
Hayes v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See also Novey v. State, 1985 OK CR 142, ¶ 14 , 709 P.2d 696, 699-700 (where defendant has drug related and non-drug related prior convictions, prosecution may elect to enhance under either § 51 or the uniform controlled dangerous substance act, but not both); Hayes v. State, 1976 OK CR 113, ¶ 15 , 550 P.2d 1344, 1348 (punishment for a drug related offense could be properly enhanced pursuant to § 51 if the prior offense alleged was a non-drug related felony). ¶9 The Appellant in VanWoundenberg and the Appellee in the present case assert this principle does not apply to the sentence enhancement 2016Cooper, 1991 OK CR 26, ¶ 17 , 806 P.2d at 1139 , See also Novey v. State, 1985 OK CR 142, ¶ 14 , 709 P.2d 696, 699-700 (where defendant has drug related and non-drug related prior convie-tions, prosecution may elect to enhance under either § 51 or the uniform controlled dangerous substance act, but not both); Hayes v. State, 1976 OK CR 118, ¶ 5 , 550 P.2d 1344, 1848 (pumshment for a drug related offense could be properly enhanced pursuant to § 51 if the prior offense alleged was a non-drug related felony). | 2 | 2 |
BIVENS v. STATEgreen2 sentences2022See Fite, 1993 OK CR 58 ¶5 The Court rejected this irrational aspect of Fite and other cases four years ago in Bivens v. State , 2018 OK CR 33 431 P.3d 985 Fite did manage to correct a major error by overruling the 1957 opinion in Brown v. State, 1957 OK CR 70 314 P.2d 362 independent authority to impose a fine under sections 64 and 991a. ¶6 And the Court did so without diminishing a trial court's obligation under section 926.1 to pronounce judgment according to the jury's verdict in other material respects: Like § 991a , § 64 should be given effect and the trial court should be allowed to imp 2022See Fite, 1993 OK CR 58 ¶5 The Court rejected this irrational aspect of Fite and other cases four years ago in Bivens v. State , 2018 OK CR 33 431 P.3d 985 Fite did manage to correct a major error by overruling the 1957 opinion in Brown v. State, 1957 OK CR 70 314 P.2d 362 independent authority to impose a fine under sections 64 and 991a. ¶6 And the Court did so without diminishing a trial court's obligation under section 926.1 to pronounce judgment according to the jury's verdict in other material respects: Like § 991a , § 64 should be given effect and the trial court should be allowed to imp | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Statered2 sentences2022See Fite, 1993 OK CR 58 ¶5 The Court rejected this irrational aspect of Fite and other cases four years ago in Bivens v. State , 2018 OK CR 33 431 P.3d 985 Fite did manage to correct a major error by overruling the 1957 opinion in Brown v. State, 1957 OK CR 70 314 P.2d 362 independent authority to impose a fine under sections 64 and 991a. ¶6 And the Court did so without diminishing a trial court's obligation under section 926.1 to pronounce judgment according to the jury's verdict in other material respects: Like § 991a , § 64 should be given effect and the trial court should be allowed to imp 2022See Fite, 1993 OK CR 58 ¶5 The Court rejected this irrational aspect of Fite and other cases four years ago in Bivens v. State , 2018 OK CR 33 431 P.3d 985 Fite did manage to correct a major error by overruling the 1957 opinion in Brown v. State, 1957 OK CR 70 314 P.2d 362 independent authority to impose a fine under sections 64 and 991a. ¶6 And the Court did so without diminishing a trial court's obligation under section 926.1 to pronounce judgment according to the jury's verdict in other material respects: Like § 991a , § 64 should be given effect and the trial court should be allowed to imp | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See also Mitchell v. State, 733 P.2d 412, 416 (Okl.Cr.1987) (When defendant convicted of drug offense has sentence enhanced pursuant to section 51 of Title 21, the fine provided in the substantive drug statute may not be additionally imposed). 1994See also Mitchell v. State, 733 P.2d 412, 416 (Okl.Cr. 1987) (When defendant convicted of drug offense has sentence enhanced pursuant to section 51 of Title 21, the fine provided in the substantive drug statute may not be additionally imposed). | 1 | 1 |
Gaines v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See Gaines v. State, 568 P.2d 1290, 1294 (Okl.Cr. 1977). 1994See Gaines v. State, 568 P.2d 1290, 1294 (Okl.Cr.1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fite v. State
green
1 sentence2022But nothing in section 926.1 denies a court's power to impose a fine, not least because that very power over the pronouncement of judgment is "hereinafter provided" in section 991a(A)(2). ¶4 In Fite v. State, 1993 OK CR 58 873 P.2d 293 imprisonment enhanced under 21 O.S., section 51(B) "cannot be combined with" the fine provided by the substantive criminal statute, and thus reverts to the general fine of section 64. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cooper v. State
green
2 sentences2016Cooper, 1991 OK CR 26, ¶ 17 , 806 P.2d at 1139 , See also Novey v. State, 1985 OK CR 142, ¶ 14 , 709 P.2d 696, 699-700 (where defendant has drug related and non-drug related prior convie-tions, prosecution may elect to enhance under either § 51 or the uniform controlled dangerous substance act, but not both); Hayes v. State, 1976 OK CR 118, ¶ 5 , 550 P.2d 1344, 1848 (pumshment for a drug related offense could be properly enhanced pursuant to § 51 if the prior offense alleged was a non-drug related felony). 2016Cooper, 1991 OK CR 26, ¶ 17 , 806 P.2d at 1139 , See also Novey v. State, 1985 OK CR 142, ¶ 14 , 709 P.2d 696, 699-700 (where defendant has drug related and non-drug related prior convie-tions, prosecution may elect to enhance under either § 51 or the uniform controlled dangerous substance act, but not both); Hayes v. State, 1976 OK CR 118, ¶ 5 , 550 P.2d 1344, 1848 (pumshment for a drug related offense could be properly enhanced pursuant to § 51 if the prior offense alleged was a non-drug related felony). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Davidson v. State
neutral
1 sentence2016Cooper, 1991 OK CR 26, ¶ 17 , 806 P.2d at 1139 , See also Novey v. State, 1985 OK CR 142, ¶ 14 , 709 P.2d 696, 699-700 (where defendant has drug related and non-drug related prior convie-tions, prosecution may elect to enhance under either § 51 or the uniform controlled dangerous substance act, but not both); Hayes v. State, 1976 OK CR 118, ¶ 5 , 550 P.2d 1344, 1848 (pumshment for a drug related offense could be properly enhanced pursuant to § 51 if the prior offense alleged was a non-drug related felony). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kolberg v. State
green
2 sentences2016See also Novey v. State, 1985 OK CR 142, ¶ 14 , 709 P.2d 696, 699-700 (where defendant has drug related and non-drug related prior convictions, prosecution may elect to enhance under either § 51 or the uniform controlled dangerous substance act, but not both); Hayes v. State, 1976 OK CR 113, ¶ 15 , 550 P.2d 1344, 1348 (punishment for a drug related offense could be properly enhanced pursuant to § 51 if the prior offense alleged was a non-drug related felony). ¶9 The Appellant in VanWoundenberg and the Appellee in the present case assert this principle does not apply to the sentence enhancement 2016See also Novey v. State, 1985 OK CR 142, ¶ 14 , 709 P.2d 696, 699-700 (where defendant has drug related and non-drug related prior convictions, prosecution may elect to enhance under either § 51 or the uniform controlled dangerous substance act, but not both); Hayes v. State, 1976 OK CR 113, ¶ 15 , 550 P.2d 1344, 1348 (punishment for a drug related offense could be properly enhanced pursuant to § 51 if the prior offense alleged was a non-drug related felony). ¶9 The Appellant in VanWoundenberg and the Appellee in the present case assert this principle does not apply to the sentence enhancement | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hudson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1967Hudson v. State, Okl.Cr., 374 P.2d 923 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 347 P.2d 232 ; Vassar v. State, Okl.Cr., 328 P.2d 445 , certiorari denied 360 U.S. 936 , 79 S.Ct. 1458 , 3 L.Ed,2d 1548. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Vassar v. State
green
1 sentence1967Hudson v. State, Okl.Cr., 374 P.2d 923 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 347 P.2d 232 ; Vassar v. State, Okl.Cr., 328 P.2d 445 , certiorari denied 360 U.S. 936 , 79 S.Ct. 1458 , 3 L.Ed,2d 1548. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Smith v. State
neutral
1 sentence1967Hudson v. State, Okl.Cr., 374 P.2d 923 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 347 P.2d 232 ; Vassar v. State, Okl.Cr., 328 P.2d 445 , certiorari denied 360 U.S. 936 , 79 S.Ct. 1458 , 3 L.Ed,2d 1548. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Vassar v. Oklahoma
neutral
1 sentence1967Hudson v. State, Okl.Cr., 374 P.2d 923 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 347 P.2d 232 ; Vassar v. State, Okl.Cr., 328 P.2d 445 , certiorari denied 360 U.S. 936 , 79 S.Ct. 1458 , 3 L.Ed,2d 1548. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.